A guide to the law and practice relating to freezing injunctions or freezing orders (previously called mareva injunctions) under CPR 25.1(1)(f). This note sets out the scope and effect of freezing orders, and provides practical guidance for applicants and respondents.

When a party makes an application without notice, it is under a duty to make full and frank disclosure, or duty of fair presentation. This practice note sets out the extent of that duty and the consequences of failing to comply with it.

When an interim injunction, freezing order or search order is granted the applicant is almost always required to give an undertaking in damages, also known as the "cross-undertaking". This practice note explains why undertakings are required, what they cover and how they are enforced.

A Checklist of formatting rules for applications for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders filed in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. Be sure to check the assigned judge's individual practices for additional formatting requirements.

This chapter considers the effects of the recent legal developments concerning attachment (freezing) orders in Switzerland. This article is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to dispute resolution. For a full list of contents visit www.practicallaw.com/disputehandbook.

In Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and others [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm), the Commercial Court gave guidance on service of arbitration claims on non-parties out of the jurisdiction, in the context of an application for a "Chabra" freezing order.

In Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and others [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant a freezing order in aid of enforcement of an arbitration award against subsidiaries of the first defendant company, who were incorporated outside the jurisdiction and had no assets or other presence here.

In U&M Mining Zambia Ltd v Konkola Copper Mines Plc [2014] EWHC 3250 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered an application to continue a worldwide freezing order in support of an award in an arbitration seated in England and Wales.

In AB v CD [2014] EWCA Civ 229, the Court of Appeal considered the issue of damages being an adequate remedy in cases where there is contractual provision limiting damages below what might have been awarded in law.

In AB v CD [2014] EWHC 1 (QB), when considering an application for a prohibitory injunction, the High Court looked at the meaning of "adequate remedy" in the American Cyanamid sense, where there is a contractual clause limiting recoverable damages. Note: On 6 March 2014 an appeal of this decision was allowed. See Legal update, Injunctions: Court of Appeal on adequate remedy test when contractual clause limiting damages.

In Bannai v Erez (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Eli Reifman) [2013] EWHC 3689 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered an application to set aside anti-suit injunctions restraining the defendant trustee in bankruptcy from continuing or pursuing proceedings against the claimant, his son and ten companies, where the agreement between the claimant and the bankrupt contained an arbitration clause.

In PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Maksimov and others [2013] EWHC 3203 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered whether to discharge a worldwide freezing order (WFO) made in support of London arbitration proceedings against a third party to those proceedings.

In Parbulk II AS v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and others [2011] EWHC 3143 (Comm), Gloster J considered the scope of the court's jurisdiction to impose a worldwide freezing order on a non-cause of action defendant outside the jurisdiction.

In Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petroleos de Venezuela SA [2008] EWHC 532 (Comm), Walker J set aside a freezing injunction which had been granted in support of claims to be determined in a New York arbitration. Walker J held that, in the absence of factors connecting the defendants with the jurisdiction (such as residence or the presence of assets within the jurisdiction), the English court should not intervene. Furthermore, the evidence had failed to establish that it would be just and convenient to grant the injunction, or that the requisite degree of urgency existed. The case is significant in a number of respects. It confirms that the court's power, under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, to intervene to support a foreign arbitration is analogous to the court's power under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in respect of foreign litigation, and that similar principles apply in each case. In non-fraud cases, a clear connection with England and Wales is required before the English court will exercise its long-arm jurisdiction under either provision. However, the judgment of Walker J leaves open a number of unanswered questions in connection with the exercise of the court's discretion under section 44.